HISTORY OF PROBATION

PROBATION - From the Latin verb "probare" - to prove, to test.  A term coined by John
Augustus.

Origins of Probation

The origins of probation can be traced to English criminal law of the Middle Ages.
Harsh punishments were imposed on adults and children alike for offenses that were not
always of a serious nature. Sentences such as branding, flogging, mutilation, and execution
were common. During the time of King Henry VIII, for instance, no less than 200 crimes
were punishable by death, many of which were minor offenses.

This harshness eventually led to discontent in certain progressive segments of

English society that were concerned with the evolution of the justice system. Slowly but
resolutely, in an effort to mitigate these inhumane punishments, a variety of measures were
devised and adopted. Royal pardons could be purchased by the accused; activist judges
could refrain from applying statuses or opt for a lenient interpretation of them; stolen
property could be devalued by the court so that offenders could be charged with a lesser
crime. Also, methods such as benefit of clergy, judicial reprieve, sanctuary, and abjuration
offered offenders a degree of protection from the enactment of harsh sentences.

Eventually, the courts began the practice of "binding over for good behavior," a form
of temporary release during which offenders could take measures to secure pardons or
lesser sentences. Controversially, certain courts began suspending sentences.

In the United States, particularly in Massachusetts, different practices were being

developed. "Security for good behavior," also known as “good aberrance,” was much like
modern bail: the accused paid a fee as collateral for good behavior. Filing was also
practiced in cases that did not demand an immediate sentence. Using this procedure,
indictments were "laid on file" or held in abeyance. To mitigate unreasonable mandatory
penalties, judges often granted a motion to quash based upon minor technicalities or errors
in the proceedings. Although these American practices were precursors to probation, it is
the early use of recognizance and suspended sentence that are directly related to modern
probation.

Modern Probation

Two names are closely associated with the founding of probation: Matthew Davenport
Hill, an 18th-century English barrister and judge, and John Augustus, a 19th-century
Boston boot-maker.

As a young professional in England, Hill had witnessed the sentencing of youthful

offenders to one-day terms, on the condition that they be returned to a parent or guardian
who would closely supervise them. When he eventually became the Recorder of
Birmingham, a judicial post, he used a similar practice for individuals who did not seem
hopelessly corrupt. If offenders demonstrated a promise for rehabilitation, they were placed
in the hands of generous guardians who willingly took charge of them. Hill had police
officers pay periodic visits to these guardians in an effort to track the offender's progress
and keep a running account.
 John Augustus, the "Father of Probation," is recognized as the first true probation
officer. Augustus was born in Woburn, Massachusetts in 1785. By 1829, he was a
permanent resident of Boston and the owner of a successful boot-making business. It was
undoubtedly his membership in the Washington Total Abstinence Society that led him to
the Boston courts. Washingtonians abstained from alcohol themselves and were convinced
that abusers of alcohol could be rehabilitated through understanding, kindness, and
sustained moral suasion, rather than through conviction and jail sentences.

In 1841, John Augustus attended police court to bail out a "common drunkard," the
first probationer. The offender was ordered to appear in court three weeks later for
sentencing. He returned to court a sober man, accompanied by Augustus. To the
astonishment of all in attendance, his appearance and demeanor had dramatically
changed.

Augustus thus began an 18-year career as a volunteer probation officer. Not all of the
offenders helped by Augustus were alcohol abusers, nor were all prospective probationers
taken under his wing. Close attention was paid to evaluating whether or not a candidate
would likely prove to be a successful subject for probation. The offender's character, age,
and the people, places, and things apt to influence him or her were all considered.

Augustus was subsequently credited with founding the investigations process, one of
three main concepts of modern probation, the other two being intake and supervision.
Augustus, who kept detailed notes on his activities, was also the first to apply the term
"probation" to his method of treating offenders.

By 1858, John Augustus had provided bail for 1,946 men and women. Reportedly,
only ten of this number forfeited their bond, a remarkable accomplishment when measured
against any standard. His reformer's zeal and dogged persistence won him the opposition of
certain segments of Boston society as well as the devotion and aid of many Boston
philanthropists and organizations. The first probation statute, enacted in Massachusetts
shortly after this death in 1859, was widely attributed to his efforts.

Following the passage of that first statute, probation spread gradually throughout the
United States. The juvenile court movement contributed greatly to the development of
probation as a legally recognized method of dealing with offenders. The first juvenile court
was established in Chicago in 1899. Formalization of the intake process is credited to the
founders of the Illinois juvenile court. Soon after, thirty states introduced probation as a
part of the juvenile court procedure. Today, all states offer both juvenile and adult
probation.
PHILIPPINE PROBATION
ESTABLISHMENT

The concept of probation stems from faith in man’s capacity to change for the better
and in the ultimate good that will redound to society by rebuilding rather than destroying
those who have offended it.

Thus, as early as the thirteenth century, efforts were made to mitigate the harshness
of penal laws through more enlightened and rehabilitative approaches in the treatment and
correction of offenders. These included the release of accused members of the clergy to
ecclesiastical authorities, judicial reprieve or temporary suspension of sentence or
execution, deportation, and release on recognizance wherein a misdemeanant bound
himself before the court to “keep the peace and be on good behavior.” These practices in
early English Courts became the forerunners of probation which was later established in
England and the United States.

In the Philippines, provisions for juvenile probation has been embodied in Article 80
of the Revised Penal Code since its enactment in 1932. Thus, sentence was suspended for
offenders under 16 years of age accused of a grave or less grave felony, who were then
placed in the care and custody of public or private entities. This was amended on December
10, 1974 by Presidential Decree No. 603, known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, and
by Presidential Decree No. 1179 which set the age of minority to below 18 years of age at
the time of the commission of the offense. Likewise, Republic Act No. 6425 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 provided for the suspension of sentence and probation of a
first-offender under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense but not
more than 21 years at the time when judgment should have been promulgated.

The move to integrate adult probation in the Philippine criminal justice system began
early in the twentieth century when the Philippine Legislature approved Act No. 4221 on
August 7, 1935. This created a Probation Office under the Department of Justice, and
provided probation for first offenders 18 years of age and above who were convicted of
certain crimes. Unfortunately, there were defects in the law’s procedural framework so that,
on November 16, 1937, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in the case of
People of the Philippines vs. Vera on the grounds of “undue delegation of legislative power”
and violation of the “equal protection of the law” clause.

  A second attempt was made when then Congressmen Teodulo C. Natividad and
Ramon D. Bagatsing introduced House Bill No. 393 during their last months in Congress.
Passed in the Lower House, this was pending in the Senate when Martial Law was
proclaimed in 1972.

The agitations for the adoption of an adult probation law continued. In 1973, the
technical staff of the Bacolod City Police Advisory Council, headed by Lt. Col. Arcadio S.
Lozada and assisted by US Peace Corps Volunteer Alvin L. Koenig, prepared a proposed
Probation Decree which incorporated pertinent provisions of the Natividad and Laurel Bills.
This was submitted to the Secretary of Justice and the National Police Commission after a
thorough perusal by a study committee of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
subsequent indorsement by its national Board of Directors.
 Late in 1975 the National Police Commission, sitting en banc and headed by Defense
Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile who was the concurrent Chairman of NAPOLCOM,       heard
the report “Meeting the Challenge of Crime” of the Philippine delegation to the 5 th United
Nations Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland in September 1975. At that time, the
Philippines was among the few participating countries without an adult probation system.
Citing the role of probation in an integrated approach to crime prevention, the delegation
urged priority action on the establishment of the system. This was the turning point that
led to the passage of the law. The Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention
created in 1974 by Secretary Enrile and chaired by Commissioner Teodulo Natividad, then
pursued the preparation of the probation decree. Eighteen technical hearings were
conducted, attended by 60 resource persons, after which the draft decree was presented at
the Seminar on the Probation System sponsored by the NAPOLCOM, Philippine
Constabulary and Integrated National Police, and the University of the Philippines Law
Center on April 24, 1976. This was studied and overwhelmingly endorsed by 369
participants representing various sectors of society. A final draft of the decree was
subsequently prepared, then reviewed and endorsed to the President of the Philippines by
the Minister of Justice, Minister of National Defense, and Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court.

Thus, the law was born on July 24, 1976. It was during the closing ceremonies of the
First National Conference on a Strategy to Reduce Crime held at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon
City, that President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 968,
otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976, in the presence of nearly 800
representatives of the country’s criminal justice system.

DEVELOPMENT

Under Executive Order No. 292, “The Administrative Code of 1987” which was
promulgated on November 23, 1989, the Probation Administration was renamed “Parole
and Probation Administration” and given the added function of supervising prisoners who,
after serving part of their sentence in jails are released on parole pardon with parole
conditions

Moreover, the investigation and supervision of First Time Minor Drug Offenders
(FTMDO) placed under suspended sentence became another added function of the
Administration pursuant to Sections 66 – 70 of Republic Act 9165, “The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” and  by virtue of the  Memorandum of Agreement between
the Dangerous Drugs Board and  Administration dated 17 August 2005. Likewise,
pursuant to Section 57 of Republic Act 9165, the Administration was designated as the
authorized representative of the Dangerous Drugs Board under the Voluntary Submission
Program.

The Agency was placed in the forefront in relation to crime prevention, treatment of
offenders in the community - based setting, and in the overall administration of criminal
justice by mandating the revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aide (VPA) Program
pursuant to Executive Order 468 dated October 11, 2005.

Under Republic Act No. 10389, “Recognizance Act of 2012”, the Administration was
directed to monitor and evaluate the activities of the person on release on recognizance.